tv The Willis Report FOX Business August 25, 2012 2:00am-3:00am EDT
gerri: hello, everybody. i am gerri willis. we begin tonight with breaking news. the jury has reached a verdict in the trial between apple and samsung. after just three days of deliberations. the two technology giants have locked horns and the end of july, each claiming the other stall the patented technology, which led to the creation of the iphone. if apple wins and gets a $2.5 billion it is asking for come it will be the biggest patent decision in history. we will of course bring you that verdict as soon as it comes in with expert analysis. first, who is really to blame for our poor job market? the government or the ever-growing power that it reportedly gives to the public
unions? and explosive new book uncovers the growing influence in all of the taxpayer dime. with more on this, we have mallory factor. this book intercept the world on fire. let's start with this idea of "shadowbosses." i'm not a union member. how is it influencing me. >> well, they are causing the size of government and grow dramatically dramatically. they are not enabling us to get our arms around our fiscal problems. government employee unions are kosher corrosion and the union bosses masquerade as somebody
who cares about the workers. they really don't. gerri: allright. >> workers have really very little to do a. gerri: let's just talk about this billion dollars in subsidies. the taxpayers, you say, are giving the unions. how is that so? >> the federal government has a number that comes from the office of personnel management. we have pay government workers to do government work and instead the union work. gerri: is that true? on government time and my time? >> if you add it all up, it is 23 million man-hours a year for the cost of over a billion dollars. we are paying for it and nobody even realizes it. >> 's. gerri: how can he get away with doing that when they are supposed to be working for us? >> because the politicians wrote it into the code. gerri: it is legal? >> it is legal. it's in the federal code. >> what is that they do on my time? >> we don't know. seventy odd presents.
we found one case, they filed a grievance in the military. they filed a grievance. it was raised from 50 to 55 cents. the military legal staff in the general court had to defend. gerri: do you have information that i have always wanted to see and haven't seen. that is how much the union bosses make. take a look at this. you will see for example, randi weingarten leads the new york teachers makes almost $500,000 per year. we get a lot of people on this list. 372,000, what is going on? >> salaries are enormous. how about dramatically from the american federation of municipal employees. he spent $325,000 on private air travel and private planes in a year and a half. his numbers don't realize that. these are the one for centers. these are the top guys. they give money to occupy wall
street rate these are the one for centers. >> it seems to me that the actual numbers, not the leaders, should be leading the charge. >> they can't. less than 10% of union members voted for their union. you can keep your job unless you're a member of the union. gerri: many states are right to work states. if that were to happen? >> you saw what happened in ohio. they put in tens of millions of dollars. you have to understand that the government unions have become the piggy bank for the democratic party. they spent hundreds of millions of dollars, just the teachers unions alone, taking $2 billion a year into his. gerri: a lot of that money, a huge proportion goes to political campaigns. >> 94% goes to democrats. gerri: union workers, they don't
have a state in who gets chosen. >> they don't even know. there is a supreme court decision. it's not important to go to the details, but it is almost impossible for them to. gerri: mallory factor, the book is a barnburner. >> the book is called "shadowbosses." gerri: the left is eager to capital on bain capital's internal documents, highlighting mitt romney's optional holdings. his bain capital a thorn in mitt romney's side? with more on this, brad blakeman. welcome back to the show, always great to have you here. some of hundred pages of documents released that port to be internal bain capital documents. first of all, do you believe that they are authentic? >> is hard for me to say. i think that romney and his folks need to determine whether or not they are real. most important, how do they get private documents that were authorized by romney or from
bain capital. gerri: they supposedly have shown that some of the bain partners, this is acrding to a professor who has reviewed these, might have cheated the margins as for paying taxes. >> i think we need a lot more information. again, these are leaked documents to embarrass mitt romney is part of the democrats strategy. distract away from their abysmal record and divide the american people. mitt romney paid his fair share of taxes, very terrible guy come up more than a president. he has nothing to be ashamed of. gerri: these documents, do you think they are worth checking out? at the end of the day, maybe we will learn something about romney's finances. >> these are leaked documents. why were they we? to embarrass mitt romney. put up or shut up is what i would tell the democrats. if you are alleging that he did something illegal or improper, you have a avenue of redress.
the government certainly does. that hasn't happened and it won't happen. the fact that romney has offshore interest is not illegal or immoral. if the president thought it was come he has 3.5 years to correct it. gerri: i heard strategists say it is the opposite. that was the height of that political manners. a bad idea politically to keep these offshore investments. at the end of the day, you know it's going to look bad. it doesn't matter whether they are legit or not. people will wonder about it. >> mitt romney is not a phony. he didn't direct this trust to do something -- a blind trust, trust that was created since 2002. the guy did nothing immoral or illegal, this is a red herring, part of the distraction and romney has nothing to apologize for. gerri: i want to talk about this op-ed in "the wall street journal." he is defending his record at bain capital.
here is what he said in the op-ed. a broad message emerges today. a good idea is that it's not enough for a business to succeed. it requires a talented team, a good business plan, and capital to execute it. would he make of that? >> i make of it but he's a very good manager. not one person who creates a good result. it is a team. this is the type of leadership. we have certainly a good member in paul ryan. there are a lot more people to come. in the next few days, especially after the convention, it would be very good for mitt romney to police and members of his economic team, foreign-policy team that he is going to attract in the government. gerri: we have a shadow group of people working with him. economists mostly well known. i just want to stay on this bain idea for one more second. at the end of the day, i don't understand what he have to apologize for working in private equity. it has been fascinating to watch the democrats beat up on the
spread of the same time, i think if you look at the record, what you find is that that company for a lot of people to work. >> yes, go ask the people at home depot and the people at staples who have hundreds of thousands of opportunities that were created as somebody who had the wisdom and foresight and took the risk in these venture market capitalism ideas. if i were mitt romney, i would tell my experience and achievement and put it up against the president, who is a miserable failure on the economy. gerri: thank you for coming on tonight, bradley can. we appreciate your time. >> now we want to know what you think. here is a question of the day. does it look bad for a presidential candidate to have a bank account in the cayman islands. but on the right-hand side of the screen and i will share the results of the show. we are still awaiting full details. be sure to stay tuned for that.
music i want some more. what's he doing? but he can't. look at him! it's just not done. please sir, i want some more. more? more? more? please sir. he has asked for... thank you. what? well he did say please... sir. yes he did. and thank you. yea. and thank you. he's a wonderful boy. (laughing) a do-lightful boy. please and thank you. pass it on.
the elephants. gerri: i'm impressed. all right. i want to talk you about the platform. everybody's talking about all the stuff that is in it, going back to the gold standard, abortion, is that a big mistake? shouldn't they be focused on the economy and jobs? what is going on with the low class. it seems to be the most important issues are economic. >> in the party platform is the equivalent of elevator music. most republicans don't even know what's in it. when the democratic platform comes up, they will be queasy about what their platform says. he wants to have his own brand and tell people what he is. hispanics and women play key roles. most important, what mitt romney has to do is talk about the future. gerri: okay, okay. just a second, you are saying the platform is meaningless. yet they are spending a ton of
time writing this thing. everybody is looking at the details on it. everybody is talking about it. it's been all over the place. have you say doesn't matter? if you're going to put together a platform it should have meaning and be something that the republicans are proud of. >> of the document that incorporates all these of the party. there are a couple of things in the platform that i am very hopeful for and that is the guestworker program, which our immigration system is broken and we really need to look at securing the border and using the free market. there are good things in there. but it's something inclusive of all different fronts. mitt romney is not running for the entire republican party. gerri: okay. i disagree. gerri: one of the things i'm interested in if there is going to be 15,000 journalists there. they don't like to take a story that is handed to them. if the story is that mitt romney is a good warm guy, which we are
told will be the storyline, they will probably look for something else in all likelihood. sarah palin, the vice president of the united states running around somewhere in florida, do you think this thing could spin out of control? >> that things can always happen. the nature is to drive the story and to find everything to get an edge for this group. mitt romney and his team really have to control the environment. if they do that and hit the ball out of the park. they are likely to get a five-point bounce. gerri: one more question here. big news this afternoon. todd akin is saying that he is staying in the senate race in missouri. it is very controversial because he has constrained comments about saying that there is legitimate rape and the woman's body naturally shuts down in this situation. thhs is going to stay in the race. would he make that? >> i don't think you should. it's not because of his pro-life
views, given that 50% of them identified themselves as pro-life. he made a statement on an emotionally charged issue. he should put his party about his aspirations and step sat down. i don't think that the akin situation will hurt the republican party but it certainly hurts our chances if we want to see the misery and to control the senate. gerri: it's always great to see you. be with us again soon. >> the government loves to tell us how much money he makes on the bailouts. but it usually only a look at one side of the coin. to hear them say it's been a riproaring success. so far from the treasury department says it has made $266 billion on t.a.r.p. bailouts. the big money went to the wall street establishment. jpmorgan, goldman sachs. most of that money paid back. the treasury reminded us about that. each additional dollar is an
additional dollar of profit for taxpayers. just today, it unloaded shares in for more things. $7 million. the government still holds stakes. 302 of them. can you believe that? that is a lot of banks. most of them are very, very small. it is no small amount of money, about $10 billion. some of that money we might never get back. it brings us to the other side of the coin. according to the congressional budget office, when you add up all of the bailouts, t.a.r.p. will end up costing taxpayers about $32 billion. i'm not even including the 100 billion-dollar plus bailouts of fannie mae and freddie mac. coming up, we are still waiting on the verdict of the apple samsung patent trial.
from maine to maui, thousands of high school students across the country are getting in on the action by volunteering in their community. it's great, helping others, and it feels good, too. are you in? whoa! anyone can do it. all it takes is a little time. are you in? chris young: action teams of high school students are joining volunteers of america and major league baseball players to help train and inspire the next generation of volunteers. it's easy to start an action team at your school so you, too, can get in on the action.
gerri: a verdict has been reached in a patent infringement case involving apple and samsung. the verdicts will come in soon. with more of this breaking news we head over to adam shapiro in the newsroom. reporter: it is a huge case. that is what everyone is on edge waiting for this. members of the jury, nine people are going to have to rule on these patent issues raised by apple and samsung. apple choosing sam's honor of stealing things and patent infringement in regards to the galaxy device and some of their
tablet devices and mobile phones that they have introduced on the market. they say they are stealing from the ipad an apple iphone. samsung on the other hand, countersuing saying that apple took our patterns and infringed upon those with the technology that allows you to send information over the internet. during the trial, they are over the airwaves, rather, they actually presented devices that dated back to 2005. if you have an apple device, you're probably familiar with the pinching the you can do on the glass screen, sam something to do that back in 2005. this is a big case and we are waiting for the verdict. seven men and two women saying they have reached a verdict. it could come down any moment. gerri: coming back to us. thank you adam. moving on, it is time now for a fact check. the president and our economy. the legacy of george w. bush.
>> by the way, just like we tested their plan under the previous administration and it did not work, we tested my plan because, if you will recall, those taxes were a little bit higher on folks like me, the economy grew faster than it has in years, 23 million new jobs. gerri: here is what the president is saying. don't blame the obama white house for three years of unemployment above 8%. the gdp growth or a housing market they can't find its ledge for six years. as is the president right? not according to new research. in fact, the feeling that the recovery never happened may just be right. consumer incomes have recovered about a quarter of the ground it lost in a recession. progress is still song. incomes are up more than 2% in the last year through june. incomes are at more than 7% lower than where they started
when it started -- the recession, in 2007. i percent or below where they were when the recession ended. in other words, you take a look at the numbers and what you find as is consumers have lost more ground since this recession than they did while he was occurring. the economy is recovered, but most american families still haven't. have it. earlier this week we talk about new research from the pew research center which on middle-class americans have lost 28% of their net worth in the past decade. much of it due to the housing bust. it is no wonder that 85% of people who identify themselves as middle class say that it is more difficult now than a decade ago to maintain their standard of living. this is what mr.'s presidential campaign should be about. the economy, the future of the middle class. national debt. anything else? it is simply a distraction. coming up later in the show, is the gold standard making a comeback? many in washington are saying
gerri: a verdict has been reached in the patent infringement case involving apple and samsung. we are being told that the verdict will be read soon. with more of this breaking news we go to adam shapiro in the newsroom. what you have? >> the latest is that the judges in the courtroom and said she is going to read refusal of the verdict for it at this point, the u.s. district judge in the northern district of california is aware of the verdict. but she is reviewing the verdict form at this point. just a quick background. unrelated case. you had the international trade commission ruling in apple's favor in a different, separate, unrelated issue. but it involves patents with
motorola and they ruled in apple's favor. now we come to this case, which everyone is watching, because billions of dollars are at stake. this is apple versus samsung and samsung versus apple. both accusing each other of infringement. the judge has the verdict and is looking at the form for inconsistencies. gerri: it could take a while. we could be waiting for 30 minutes. that would be out of our show. this could take some time. we will come back right to you. let us know if you hear anything. all right. now we are going to go to jonas to talk about the same topic content topic more in detail. apple versus samsung. who has the edge? >> you know, apple has the edge. it is probably, believe it or not, this could be hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. if they win this and not a patent attorney, but neither are the jury members.
they would then go after all phone makers. gerri: watch out google, here comes to if nobody could compete with them on price either -- that is really where it's coming in, if they had to pay a 40 or 50-dollar fee to apple that said that they wanted it originally, their prices would never be lower than the apple ipod or iphone. at that point, people wouldn't pick them and it would be -- apple could be well over 8 billion-dollar company. the number one area in desktops and laptops and ipods and iphone. gerri: just adding, this is going to go on forever because everybody is expecting it to. this case will not be done, even when it is done. i want to bring in an attorney and expert on these issues. i know you are watching this closely. tommy, what is your intuition here. who has the edge in this? everybody is suing everybody
else to great talking to you again. this is the biggest technology trial ever. i think that apple has the edge right now. we are all just sitting on the edge of our seats waiting to see what happens. my prediction is that apple has the upper hand. i think that they were able to submit compelling evidence that demonstrated documents showing that there was a real concern from a serious concern and that they needed to try to rapidly catch up and really follow what was going on with the apple and ipod. i think the evidence was compelling. i think the case was solid and i am goingo predict a win for apple. gerri: apple is seeking $2.5 billion in damages. that would be one of the biggest -- the biggest settlement, i believe, ever. what does that do to samsung? >> saint-saens is such a dominant player in electronics. like tvs, for example. however, it gives apple control over the most important areas in
personalized electronics personalized electronics, which as i've had some phones at this point. they could essentially decide who gets used certain technologies they have and how much they would charge for those things. you can't have certain features and price points -- you'll be out of business quickly, sometimes the closest competitor to apple in itunes and ipods, in lieu of that -- that's why they want to be first. sony has a walkman that was really big deal and then everybody started making them. just because your phone looks sort of like and i've had and has more functions doesn't necessarily mean they are really infringing. this is an attack on google, essentially -- [inaudible] basically to go to war. it's like having troops. you have to infringe on some of these we can reach some sort of agreement. you are trying to make smart phones and you're out of luck.
gerri: jonas makes a very good point that just because your product looks at the competitors doesn't mean that you want to sue. but i have to tell you that the judge said in this case, that the samsung galaxy tablet looks exactly like like the like the ipod. when you make of that? >> i agree and i think that's an indicator of why apple is expecting to get a verdict here. you know, i agree agreed with everything that has been said. just because they have similarities and and technology doesn't mean that you'll get an infringement verdict. juries loved documents. they love to see real-time, what's been happening, what are people saying on the street. these documents have demonstrated to the jury that there are some real concerns with samsung as far as apple argues, that they were going to go ahead and try to copy this technology, everything is at stake in this trial. the winner is going to be the
winner for the next generation of smart phones. gerri: if that's the case, and you guys both untenable and that apple has the edge, this is a company that seems to have cleared the table when it comes to technology competitors. they really lead the way. what will that mean? local apple's competitive position even? >> it hasn't hurt them -- their public brand from being one of the most contingent tech companies in history. they will sue anybody over anything. the beatles got sued -- you know, they sued on intellectual property and design. that is really what it was. there is hard competitors. eventually wiped out and now they are worth more than that. they put a lot of legal resources into this. i hope it doesn't come down that steve jobs is a hero in america.
samsung is a knockoff company to the public and the jury. i hope that is not how this turns out. gerri: to be one that should be decided on issues. >> you never know. we will see. gerri: don't go anywhere. we are still waiting for the verdict in the apple and samsung trial. the judge is reviewing what the jury had to say. we are going to have more coverage after the break. don't go away, we will see you right back
it was the biggest race of the year, and no matteoqat, i was gonna win. someti[js...things happen you just canoi explain. )a ♪ oh, i believe there e angels among us... ♪r> and some things ar more importanthan winning. #% ♪ sent iíwn to us #]from somewhere up(above ♪r2 #o♪hey come to you and me ♪ i don't remember who won the ra that day...r2 ♪ to show usfr how to live, ♪ ... bui'll(never forget how i felt. ♪ to teach us f:how to give ♪ to guide us with the light of love. ♪
gerri: we are still awaiting a verdict in the apple samsung trial. it could come any minute. experts are standing by to tell you about it. we will get to that as soon as it happens. in the meantime, we will talk about lance armstrong. it is as if his record-breaking run is not one of the most incredible achievements in history. he is giving up writing the accusation of using joe. amanda was once considered a hero is now cheap. let's ask our legal analyst, lis wiehl. welcome back to the show. >> is a very sad day for sports. look, if you didn't do it, and then i am juror number one out there -- could stand up and say,
i know his family is hurt by this and he is being hurt by this -- but he could stand up and say i didn't do it. here is the key, he would go through arbitration, which is what -- he could do all that. we are going to bring in 10 or more witnesses to say that we did do this. if you were innocent, in my humble opinion, he would've gone through the arbitration process. instead of saying no, going to fold now. gerri: a lot of people are upset. not only because it's where i'm strong and he's uncharitable work, but because the dope agency -- it's not a sport itself. if the federal government. they would press his case and pressed his case, have they been unfair in a way? >> i don't think so. i know it's a horrible day and i know it's a horrible day for armstrong and i am a fan of lance armstrong. that is their job they are trying to ferret out any kind of inconsistencies here.
if they don't do that, why are they paying them? they shouldn't even be there. all they said is that we accuse you, we want you to go to arbitration. that is in the contract. go to arbitration. he said no, not going to do that. to back up at this point -- if you or i were accused of crime -- to keep you off the stand? no way. you would take the stand and so i. gerri: i talk to people who were inside the biking sport. a lot of them believe that lance is guilty and that everybody who is in the sport at the time that the same thing. >> and it may be people who are trying to get off on their own saying that either testified against armstrong. is that commendable? that is how the prosecution -- are they going after the guys? probably so. that may be right. i hate to say it, gerri. gerri: what would you advise
lance armstrong to very. >> it depends on whether he did it or not. gerri: we don't know. >> we do not know. gerri: if he didn't do it, we don't know. we have breaking news on the apple samsung verdict. i understand that adam has details. >> this is coming off of thomson reuters for the u.s. jury has ruled in favor of apple saying that samsung electronics, their phones infringe on apple inc. it is a patent infringement, obviously, that this is just crossing from reuters. that the u.s. jury has ruled in favor of apple saying that samsung did infringe upon the patents. there is going to be more of this kind of thing. in fact, here it comes. hitting a button on the computer to recycle everything. there are going to be several of these kinds of verdicts. gerri: adam, as he watches, apple is seeking $2.5 billion in damages.
something you watch for during these headlines. do you expect it to happen? do think they will get that -- what would be probably the biggest settlement of the sort ever? >> it would be the largest ever. absolutely. but they have to get through, as you said, the appellate process. dow jones -- and this is from "the wall street journal" -- finding that samsung infringed. they infringed the pinch screen. they had the device back in 2005 but the jury didn't buy it. the jury ruling in favor of apple. gerri: stay with us. a constitutional attorney and expert on patent matters. sir, you call this verdict moments ago. what is your reaction? >> it is good to be back. i'm not surprised. i thought that the apple attorney did a very good job. they put in very specific evidence. this is a huge landmark victory for apple. this is going to continue to play out over the next couple days. we need to take a further review of exactly how the injunction
plays out. this is a landmark victory for apple and will have a profound impact and reverberations in the smartphone market. >> it came very quickly. the jurors have over 700 questions about her. for them to go through it that quickly, that's pretty amazing for apple. gerri: i understand you have more details, adam. >> also saying that samsung phones infringe on the apple products regarding scroll and multi- touch. it is all so far -- of apple three and samsung zero. >> a big score here for apple. really leading the way here. lis wiehl, you look at this and apple is the kind of company that i would think it would appeal to a jury. >> these jurors are not patent lawyer but they are seeing copycat
versus copycat. the documents of samsung -- samsung wanted to be copying what apple was doing. they were worried about the competition. the jury says that's not fair. as for damages, this will go to the appellate process. it's not going to be $2.5 billion. it won't get anywhere near that. but it will be in the hundreds of millions. gerri: we have a long ways to go on this. let's go back to adam. he has more details. >> the jury ruling that samsung violated patents and infringed on apple patents in regards to the zoom and navigating features. you know, the apple devices you can do more with their pitching and the bounce back. but also infringing on the patent for zoom. navigating features as well. gerri: on and on and on. seth, are you still there? this sounds not like just to win. this is a slamdunk. have you looked at? >> it's a homerun for apple. it's huge problem for samsung.
it will be interesting -- the most profound impact is yet to come. because the injunction is ongoing. this will reverberate for quite sometime. at the end of the day you have an injunction. gerri: all right, jonas, you just sat down with us. can you give us your reaction to this? >> i think it's a little ridiculous. i think some of these functions that apple has invented -- and not just downplaying the design style and innovation, but these things that they have, you can't make phones that are is remotely as cool as an iphone. very basic things. for example, my htc phone -- it bounces off but you can't do that. [talking over each other]
gerri: apple stock shooting higher after hours trade. >> what about sam something that we are scared and nerous and we will koppel you. as a legal matter coming up to to follow that. >> i do think that that interpretation is also like patenting what companies do -- i don't think that counts. a lot of companies knockoff stuff. it doesn't mean you're liable. it's like cars. are you going to see someone like cadillac because you have something on your car that they have. >> clearly samsung was going after that. gerri: lets you what seth has to say about this issue. seth come you have looked at this in detail. at the end of the day, who is right? isn't lis wiehl or jonas? this is really infringing, this is important or is it not?
>> i think this is a huge verdict. it is one of the most critical developments in technology. in any recent history. i respectfully disagree with the argument that it really goes into apple. i think apple deserves to win. we predicted right before it landed that apple was going to win based upon the documents and i agree that the documents are critical. the company like samsung wants to create the next generation of intellectual property, let them create it. apple created the technology and they have eight patent and are protected. we all expect the companies to follow the law. we are living in a generation where everybody needs to follow ethics and compliance and protect their own property. i also think this is going to be a bonus for consumers. there's a lot of controversy about whether this helps or hurts consumers. i think that companies need to move ahead and create and protect their own intellectual property. the jury decreed and they delivered a landmark verdict for apple today. it is a huge day for the company. >> separating the benefit of consumers -- there is almost no case where this will benefit a consumer. especially in pricing.
the they are undercutting the price of the ipod and iphone. in many cases, knockoffs. to be uneducated not a patent attorney eye. if you have to pay royalties -- the prices eventually going to go up. they will have to pay money to apple. forty or $50 -- whatever it is. that doesn't mean that they shouldn't lose the case and that they shouldn't have to pay the fee. that's just the consumer. regional generic drugs are $3 and a regular drugstore. the patent of the hundred dollars. now it is going to a level that we've never seen. gerri: i have to break in. adam shapiro has more breaking details. >> when you talk about this being a slamdunk, the jury found that samsung took actions to induce subsidiaries to infringe on apple patents. this is a slamdunk. it is a homerun. hitting it out of the ballpark for apple.
>> talking about conspiracy, they complied with others to get their commission of a infringing on that the patent. with all due respect, the fact that it hurts consumers -- i'm sorry, but the companies have to follow the law. patent laws are there for a reason. gerri: i always expected apple's stock to go higher. it's up but not dramatically. i'm surprised. jonas, any reason that would be? >> no one thinks this is really going to stick. there is no explanation why that stock -- if they could protect every patent that they have done, and there's a lot of patents out there, not just apple but others as well. you cannot compete with them without writing a check. it's a $1000 to operate no one actually thinks that's going to be the long-term face of this. other countries, other patent laws from other countries do other things we could go on and on for a long time. just in general, this concept that the core design features --
that apple is not going to stick. >> that's not going to happen and you know that. they will go through the appellate process. there is no settlement inside. gerri: adam shapiro has more in. >> why the stock is not shooting up is because we are waiting for the key verdict, which is whether or not the apple patents are valid. what is the validity of it. because if they are ruled to be it not valid, then you might be able to infringe on those. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> you could get a patent that turns out to be bogus. if someone could prove that they tried to -- someone did a patent years ago -- [talking over each other] gerri: is this a big question? whether the apple patents are valid or not? >> it has to be addressed. it's an important question. i think we will all fall off or chairs if it is determined that it's an invalid patent. and i think that is ordinarily we have a jury verdict.
there are certain procedures. it is likely in this one that was already addressed. i agree that wasn't announced. we still have to talk about this because it's fast breaking news. i would be very surprised if it would infringe upon others. >> it is a 22 page verdict. i would guess that you wouldn't even get to the 700 other questions if you can get through the initial question if the patent was endured. gerri: adam shapiro has more. >> the jury finds samsung infringed on apple design patents in regards to the validity issues -- they would be shocked if the jury doesn't hold and uphold the validity of these patents. john roberts. they are very often sometimes surprising in the decisions that come down the pipe. gerri: do you think the smart money was winning on this? >> i think the united states
that are home to company, apple would win the case. you saw that there was a split decision in south korea. on this patents fight between apple and samsung. that was a split decision. but then you have this itc ruling that doesn't involve samsung. it has to do with motorola. apple is involved in all kinds of patent fights with google and everybody. i think that the money was that apple would witness. gerri: i want to put something on the table that jonas brought up that i thought was interesting. apple has this incredible reputation. it's a company that is well regarded by investors and consumers alike. did that have a role in the way that this jury reacted? seth, to you first. >> technically that's not the case. when you go through the process, you interview the witnesses. you ask them for their vices. that is supposed to get weeded out. jury instructions are just the sort them out -- come on, seth. people have views views on these companies at the end of a.
>> they do. at the end of the day, jurors who do a good job of listening to the judge's instructions -- in my trial experience, jurors are very careful when they hear the judge that you have to follow the evidence, when the credibility of the evidence. gerri: okay. >> i have to go to adam here. adam, you have more breaking details. >> the jury said that samsung's galaxy tablet did not read the galaxy tablet for that is their version of the i've had did not infringe apple's design patents for industrial tablet design. now we have a verdict in favor of samsung. gerri: that is one mark in favor of samsung. >> it's minor. it's very minor. gerri: okay. >> that's it because they had to have reached the decision on the patents being valid before they got any of these other questions. >> i don't have all of the numbers in front of me, but that one i think was really big. the wolf pack concept is -- the
whole world of technology is going to change. you could make a phone that doesn't swipe up and down, but the concept of having an ipod or a notebook pad -- it's not solely apples -- what? gerri: you can even swipe on my blackberry now. blackberry is out of business essentially because of apple. the point is you can't make a tablet design. google stock would collapse tomorrow. gerri: what you say about this, seth? a small win here for samsung? >> yes, that's a small win. i think that they're having -- they're not going to be celebrating this. it's a very small win. when you have the verdict and they have all these questions and you are basically batting a 900 if you are apple, in a way you could argue that that makes a verdict likely more burden
for. gerri: we have christopher who is a patent attorney. crisper, your reaction to this? >> there is another question regarding the validity of the patents. we should hold up with respect to the validity here. gerri: let me ask you, are you surprised at what appears to be a home on your lap and 10 apple? >> the particular questions here, the judges are decided -- the rest of the stuff here, it's a resounding victory for apple. and design of rights in general. gerri: you take a look at this for a second.
consumers out there. apple is the white knight. no doubt about it. they are incredibly well-written. >> talking about the jury in the jury they don't leave their common sense at the door. infringing on the patents are one company to another -- apple was able to bring in and they were going to try to do this to bring them down -- that is why they came to such a quick verdict or. gerri: i have a question about intellectual property rights. it seems to me an armageddon -- sorry, we have more details from adam shapiro. >> those patents are valid. the apple patents are valid. gerri: chris, what is your reaction? >> they sure are. this is a resounding victory for apple. i would note that -- the
question regarding the damages, we are talking about the design patent damages, this could be significant. because it's going to be samsung's profits which will be the award. this is how we get up to these big dollar numbers, multibillion dollar numbers. stay tuned on that. gerri: okay. >> wanting to know, there was findings of willful patent infringement. this number is going to be a big one. gerri: 10 seconds are, what you say? >> a huge landmark win for apple. the company taking a huge step forward. the only huge question left of the injunction is this will be an avalanche. >> images are huge. it will be litigated for years. gerri: we have a long way to go here. jonas? >> patents will make a situation where only apple could make ipads for the onow